[UPDATED] Can we get much wider? Canon EF 11-24mm F4 L USM samples gallery posted: Digital Photography Review

Article

[UPDATED] We were curious to see how the new Canon 11-24 F4 performed on a high resolution sensor, so we've updated our gallery with some landscapes and aperture progressions taken on a 36MP Sony a7R with a Metabones adapter. Though performance at extremes of the frame may not be representative of that on a native body, the 11-24 doesn't disappoint. Have a look at the new shots on the 3rd page of our gallery.

Canon's new EF 11-24mm F4 L wideangle zoom lens is Canon's widest ever rectilinear zoom by some margin, and might even challenge Nikon's venerable 14-24mm F2.8 as the tool of choice for landscape, property and architectural photographers.

The lens is constructed from 16 elements in 11 groups. Four of those elements are aspherical, one is of ultra low-dispersion glass and another is 'super' ultra low-dispersion. External elements are fluorine coated, while inside surfaces have sub-wavelength structure coatings to minimize internal reflections that cause flare and ghosting. If all of this makes your heart race you'll know exactly how we felt when a reviewable sample arrived in our office last week.

See our Canon EF 11-24mm F4 L USM samples gallery

Comments

Total comments: 306

Property and Architecture? It better have very low distortion! So far, the only choice is the Sigma 12-24 Mark I, which has the best distortion control over any wide-angle lens. Downside is resolution is not that good.

1 upvote

Seems to me that canon hasnt done squat in years and now their way of trying to make a stand again, is by releasing overkill and overpriced gear. If i had $4k to spend on a lens. the 11-24 would be the last thing id consider. Id go for the otus.
Curious to see what the 5Ds/r turns out to be and how much its gonna cost. Also find it quite funny how the MP count is all Canon is trying to push to consumers.

0 upvotes

what more do you need? Canon has the most comprehensive lens in the industry for their dslr. CA etc doesn't show up anyways printed on fine arts papers mural sized. Printed ISO 1600 from my 6d 2 meters by 1.5 meters no noise or CA using the 16mmF4 I.S zoom.

0 upvotes

I love ultra wide lens and even the 14mm L mk2 is an extremely difficult lens to master. For landscape, you better have an outstanding foreground because everything else such as the horizon etc will look small and almost impossible to shoot without grad filters.

Notice on the sample gallery how the horizon looked small, even if you have spectacular cloud formations and light, they will look small. So shooting at 11mm you better have a knockout foreground that is one in a million to make the shot at 11mm.

If your thing is spectacular light during both twilights, sunrise and sunsets, filters are a must. I have to use the Hitech Lucroit on my 14mm Mk2 L, as much as I am keen on this else, I will wait until there are filters to fit this behemoth of a lens.

3 upvotes

If filters were an absolute 'must' for such 11mm shots of horizons at sunset, then we wouldn't have been able to get that shot of the 3 rocks in the water pictured above (or here) in one shot, now would we have? :)

Thankfully, with better sensor technology, we can get these sorts of shots without grad ND filters, and by shooting Raw. You just need a camera with a lot of dynamic range (like the a7R used here), and some post-processing prowess.

The resulting image will look very dark on the back of the camera (b/c you've had to expose to not clip highlights), but you'll be able get all the shadow information back in post.

Cameras with 'flat' picture profile options then have the advantage of making that very dark exposure look correct right on your camera's LCD, by doing drastic shadow lifts for you.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

1 upvote

For full disclosure, though, a grad ND filter might still be a better way to make an image like the one above, b/c by holding back highlights, you can increase the exposure on the shadows. This'll always yield cleaner shadows than underexposed shadows that have had to be pushed, even with high dynamic range cameras. This is b/c the shorter your exposure, the more shot noise, so you always benefit from collecting more light.

But a shot like the one above also doesn't have offensive noise in those rocks, so is perfectly acceptable. Grad ND filters of course have the disadvantage of potentially degrading your image (b/c of the resin), and darkening things you don't want darkened, b/c you don't have a perfect line of a horizon (cityscapes, for example).

So there are pros/cons to using/not using filters. Reason I bring all this up is b/c: it's no longer absolutely true that you absolutely need filters for 'spectacular' twilight light. Sensors have come a long way.

0 upvotes

In film days I was a dyed-in-the-wool grad filter user, but come digital, I actually preferred the look of post-processing. My photoshopped images looked more natural than my grad-filtered images. So I no longer use the grads, and looking at my old film images, I get a bit of a cringe feeling now when I see those filtered skies, seas or whatever. Technology moves on, and our art benefits.

0 upvotes

For horizon shots I use Reverse Grads or Strip Filters. But we have liveview, just use it and choose which filter will look natural..Thanks for the reply Rishi! Anyway we look at it, it is a very difficult lens to master! I'd love to shoot with it, maybe I will rent it first. I was shooting at Phuket Ban Naithon Beach against the sun I really did get the shot with my 14mmMk2 L with Lucroit Filters from sunset I used .9 reverse grad until the after glow, the light, the sky and cloud was spectacular! I have never seen light like that before and I captured each passing light. What made it spectacular was on the left side of me, the cloud and light closest to me was purple pink magenta with blue light! It was amazing! I was working frantically back and forth with my .6 reverse and .6 and .9 soft grad, I got natural shot because I shot them with Liveview, and no way that I was going to miss the shot! I have been to the same place dozens of time but last August 2014 was THE best.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Ecopix, I would like to know which sensor is able to shoot against the setting sun without using at least a 3 stop reverse grad. I have to use Benson 4 stops reverse grad. When printed, even my 7d looked spectacular on Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta Paper and nobody mentioned anything about me usingfilters. By the way, I use a 6d since June 2014. Just use the liveview, meter on the foreground and use filters for the photo to look natural. Sometimes I just use my X pro adapter ring and use blu tac to stick my grads so I can work quickly.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

You're correct of course - we still often need different exposures for different parts of a scene to recreate what the human eye/brain can accomplish.

We're just talking about different ways of doing it. You prefer to do it in-camera; I found I got more natural results making two or more exposures and combining in post.

Two ways of doing the same thing, to overcome technical limitations so we can portray the world the way human vision would perceive it.

You've obviously perfected your technique to make inspiring images, so good on you. That's what it's all about.

0 upvotes

EcoPix - I hear you. The grad filters make you make certain irreversible decisions ahead of time - such as where that hard edge will be. Which doesn't work very well for cityscapes, where you need a soft gradation so building don't immediately look harsh. But then the interesting light is usually when the sun is low in the sky, and that's where the Daryl Benson reverse 4-EV grad comes in handy - but then again that just eats into the city buildings... it's very difficult to do right.

Which is why you'd be much better off with just a 21 EV dynamic range sensor in Raw. We don't have that yet, but a D810 is pretty close. Keep it at ISO 64, and expose for the highlights (this is where I wish manufacturers had a Raw-based histogram). Bracket a bit around it, then pull shadows/midtones to taste in ACR. Do all the gradients/masking/luminosity masks you want there. Image average identical shots to decrease noise levels in the pushed shadows.

0 upvotes

Are you referring to stacking in your last line, Rishi? That is a third way, and there is a quite technical discussion of that over in the Nikon 1 system forum at present, exploring full-fame IQ from those little cameras.
Turns out they trade DR for sheer shooting speed, which can facilitate median stacking in post. Many routes to the same destination.
Re skyscrapers, I work in forests and woodlands - same problem. It only takes one tree to upset a grad filter!
Thanks for the insights, and from abi, too.

0 upvotes

Yes, EcoPix, exactly what I'm referring to. I often think it's easier to average a few of the same exact exposure than to average different exposures, b/c you don't typically have to worry about harsh transitions between two drastically different exposures, where masks become complicated (and I don't like the results of automated HDR software).

With multi-image averaging, as long as none of your tones are at/near the low read noise floor of the D810, you shouldn't have to image average that many shots to get clean, ISO 100-like pushed shadow performance (that looks like unpushed ISO 100, that is).

While it's rare that you'll need multi-imaging to reduce shadow noise w/ the D810, sometimes for extremely high DR scenes that you want to make large prints of, you may wish to clean up noise a bit. In which case, it helps that with the D810 few of your tones, if any, will be at the noise floor where SNR=1.

...

0 upvotes

...

B/c to get SNR=1 tones up to, say, SNR=10, you'd need to average 100 shots (SNR goes up as sqrt of # images averaged). If those same tones are SNR=5 (much more likely for a D810, given its incredibly low noise floor), you only have to average 4 shots to get to SNR 10.

With my 5D Mark III, tones would easily run down to SNR=2 or 1, in which case multi-image averaging becomes of limited value, and it's easier to just to HDR different exposures. Otherwise, you'll find yourself averaging hundreds of shots... You're better off just increasing your exposure considerably to get all tones above the high read noise floor.

Probably a similar case for the Nikon 1 cameras, since they also have high downstream read noise, certainly not helped by the fact that shot noise is already pretty high because of the small sensor.

0 upvotes

Thanks Rishi, that's a very good tip - I hadn't thought of combining the two like that. You should be paid more!

0 upvotes

As has been said, a lot of these shots will be taken using a tripod, especially on an f4 unstabilised lens and you can exposure bracket and blend the layers in Photoshop. In fact the auto align layers functionality makes this possible even with handheld shots.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I have DIY Holder for Canon 11-24mm f4 Bombo165C1124 can fit filter size 165mm, can use ND and GND together

0 upvotes

It maybe a very good lens, but at Aust$4000 I think you would need to find a real need for it. or deep pockets maybe.

1 upvote

most pictures looks ridiculous unreal, its a toylens like lensbaby but for 3k.-

0 upvotes

Well the good news is the world is big enough to include people with differing opinions. So while you don't care for UWA photos a lot of others do and for them this lens makes a lot of sense.

4 upvotes

It's a new visual language that's developed, especially over the last couple of decades. First came the Widelux style camera, then the Technorama style that landscapers embraced and created a new art form with.

Then along comes GoPro to immerse selfies in the landscape, and with more and more of these wide, 'unnatural' views getting past conservative editors and into print, more people are becoming used to them, and they're establishing themselves as a visual language that's supplementing the more traditional views.

So Canon (and Sigma) are just bringing things up to date, so we can use the modern mainstream gear for what quite recently needed a specialised type of camera or post techniques.

2 upvotes

the detail looks really sharp (even at 100%) but somewhat these images look kind or dull (as if the highlight is suppressed).

0 upvotes

I've long ago dismissed this Amazon site do to the downright silly commentary. And this thread does not disappoint. Oh. And if this lens was f:2.8 it would easily weigh twice as much as well as cost that if it was of equal optical quality. Let alone geared with T stops.
At least the ability to pair it with a mirrorless here is great fun.
Carry on.

0 upvotes

BUT, Nikon's 14-24 is a 2.8 lens. Enough said. What a joke of a lens Canon!

1 upvote

Get back to us if the Nikon can shoot at 11 mm.

8 upvotes

joke of a lens.. you mean.. like a joke of a post this is?

4 upvotes

Classy comment!

0 upvotes

I guess he is sad with the nikon-lineup ;)

2 upvotes

Like all of Canon's products, it's still very overpriced.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Tyler C, why shouldn't Canon price it's product as it wishes? There are people whom will pay for a brand and Canon is a reputable brand. I see people throwing their money on Apple brand and why is that? For instance, iPod... they sound quality is mediocre compared to some competition portable players like Sony but yet people (the standard Joe) are willing to throw money on it because of the brand.

0 upvotes

Clearly you don't know what f/2.8 is or why you would need it.

0 upvotes

Clearly you don't know what 11mm is and why you would need it.

0 upvotes

Can we get much wider? I don't know but I guess Sigma sees this as a challange now.

1 upvote

On a Sony body? This is as embarrassing as five years ago when Canon FF shooters resorted to lenses other than their own to get decent results.

3 upvotes

Not necessarily.
This is about Sony camera users having another choice of lens as much as Canon lens users having another body.

Having dual systems also means you don't have to have two full lens sets.

2 upvotes

The 5Ds is already announced. Don't troll.

0 upvotes

Better idea: Use Zeiss OTUS lenses on EVERY camera tested to get a REAL idea of how those cameras really perform.

1 upvote

Uhm, the 50MP Canon 5Ds and 5Ds R are going to available in June. Chill dude.

0 upvotes

?????????????????????????????????????????????

0 upvotes

another seaside shot :O
greatttttt lens!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Played with one at a recent CPS event. Amazing. And that's not just the price.

0 upvotes

... next step ...
Canon TS-EF 11-24mm F4 L IS STM !
:D

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting

4 upvotes

This would suggest AF on a TS-lens. Patent pending... ;)

0 upvotes

Yes, AF on a TSE Lens, absolutely! (my intentions exactly)
With Canon ExpSim LV and Modular VASS (Vari-Angle Swivel Screen), one can comfortably preview focus-check anywhere in the ultrawide TSE fov of high digital magnification of 50mp+ images or potential 4k+ video footage! :D

I have suggested before that Canon TSE lens be updated to have EOS AF capabilities ... as well as, this time round ... IS ... :)

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

11mm TSE equals due the larger lightcircle to an 11mm mediumformat lens. 11mm@MF is about 6mm FF equiv (645 or 6x6)... this will most likely never happen :)

0 upvotes

maybe not for 11mm TSE (unsure relevance of medium format; they don't even have fast wide (affordable?) 29mm f1.7 (ff.fov: 24mm f1.4) ... with AF)

however, I miss AF on my TSE-24mm f3.5L II
surely, 14mm and up could have AF.

0 upvotes

It would be interesting to see a comparison with Sigma's 12-24. To see how much better the Canon is and to see how much 1mm makes in field of view difference (assuming they are not cheating about the minimum focal length).

1 upvote

This lens does look great, ignoring the price. I do wonder what Sigma could do if it produced an Art version of their UWAs

1 upvote

Canon on Canon body = sharp from edge to egde and low noise. Canon lens on Sony A7R body = poor edge to edge sharpness and low of noise even @iso100.

2 upvotes

Sony A7R is 36MP, Canon 6D is 20MP. With this in mind, I think the lens looks good on the Sony. But those people asking for high resolution will be in for a treat.

2 upvotes

Incorrect. We have yet to see how the lens performs on a high res Canon body.

Furthermore, the edge to edge performance is still pretty impressive even adapted on an a7R.

Also, the shots on the rocky beach are a pretty stressful case for any lens - those rocks were ~1 ft or so away from the lens. I tried to find the hyperfocal distance as best I could to get everything in focus in a single shot, but undoubtedly the edge-to-edge performance of objects at infinity probably won't be as good when you focus at the hyperfocal distance vs. focusing at infinity.

As for a Sony camera leading to more noise, well, we both know that's not true :)

Keep in mind this is a fairly high dynamic range shot, & these are all single exposures. These rocks were dark, w/ no light shining on them, countered by the bright sky above the set sun.

What's amazing is that there's this little noise.

Just goes to show, again, it's not the ISO that determines the noise. That's a gross over-simplification.

21 upvotes

So there is no correlation between ISO and visible noise. Interesting.

0 upvotes

I should've said 'it's not just the ISO that determines...', but I ran out of words...

No, it's not that there's no correlation between ISO and visible noise, but that the relationship is very complicated. The biggest determinant is actual light captured, which is linked to the exposure. ISO amplification can actually decrease noise by raising signals above noise floors and/or reducing quantization error (at the cost of dynamic range b/c of signal clipping).

2 upvotes

You mean that Canon glass somehow causes more noise on Sony sensor?

I have yet to experience that...in fact my TS-E lenses give much better IQ on A7R than with current Canon bodies (the 5DS R is not available yeat). Anyway I'll wait for Sony 50MP camera instead and get better dynamic range with less money.

2 upvotes

No, a Canon camera would lead to much more noise in a single exposure of a scene like this. Not the lens.

3 upvotes

Hang on, a Canon FF with the the same lens as a Sony FF would capture the same amount of light and so have the same amount of shot noise. At low ISO you'd get more read noise, but whether you see that (in the dark parts of the image) is just down to how little light there is (but presumably you'd crank the ISO as it goes down) and if you pull up the shadows (which I assume you wouldn't in lens test shots).
I did like the whole lens adding noise thing though, someone should start making low-noise lenses... but probably not put a return address on the box...

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

1 upvote

This shot was exposed for the highlights (ETTR), and shadows were raised a lot. You should see the original shot actually... perhaps I'll post it in my gallery for fun tomorrow :)

Those rocks were probably pushed something like 4 stops or more. This scene was a very high dynamic range one, so you'd certainly have seen read noise in those rocks.

0 upvotes

Thanks for the info!

0 upvotes

If you want to know what lenses like this are for, go see a few graphic-novel based movies.
"Kingsmen" is one that's out now that shows off how to use extreme wide angles. The trend in framing among the contemporary cinematographer is to include a big foreground object with lots of background. It's an effect that's more easily do-able with a wide angle like this.

The other cultural influence that has primed us for for the look of the extreme wide angle: Google StreetView. Those ubiquitous images have helped our eyes adapt to and accept the peculiar dynamics of that perspective.

2 upvotes

Very impressive. Amazing what computers and material science can accomplish. Especially noteworthy is the lack of apparent distortion.

5 upvotes

The trend in photographic gear development indicates towards subsidence of APC size DSLRs. I think the future will be shared between 4/3 sensor mirrorless cameras for size/weight reasons and 35mm DSLRs for obvious reasons which I won't go in to. Though I think we'll see more and more 35mm mirrorless machinery too.

1 upvote

You think the future will include MFT, and 35 mm dSLR and 35mm mirrors.
Incredible. You must have a crystal ball.

1 upvote

Considering how m43 is stuck at 16 MP while APS-C has now reached 28mm and will probably take off from there I don't see m43 making as much inroads as you think.

A lot of buyers are hobbyists and first time buyers who will see mega-pixels above anything else.

0 upvotes

In the interest of correctness ;
APS-C has now reached 24mm (on some).
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/news/new-rokinon-16mm-f20-wide-angle-lens-aps-c-and-micro-four-thirds

0 upvotes

^^ What the heck are you talking about ? :P

0 upvotes

It's amazing that how some people are not able to reply to a non aggressive comment without regressing to their troublesome adolescent years.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting

6 upvotes

It is also amazing how some people feel the need to say something, anything, no matter how fatuous, when they really have nothing to say.

1 upvote

I didn't think you would reveal yourself so quickly. You must be a sad person that the only authority you are able to practice is in a virtual world.

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

No t really
Most dpr readers are keen to keep the forums on topic, so they don't fill with rubbish
I am not sure that your response offered anything to the discussin about the lens, and would hardly qualify you as a soothsayer, so you must expect some flack for making a comment that is so obvious
I wouldn't take it too personally

0 upvotes

Canon did a nice job here. I can't afford it unfortunately so I'll have to stick to Microsoft Image Composite Editor for now which kicks PS6 Photomerge ass ;)

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

2 upvotes

People spend $25,000 for an old Nikon 220 degree fisheye that isn't good for anything; now that's expensive. Actually, they were supposed to be great for photographic inspection of the inside of pipes.

But about this 11-24. Why not just rent one or wait for a Canon rebate in the fall? At least that's $200-300 off the price.

If you do buy one now, for $3500, it will always be worth at least $2800-3000 used. The value of a $3500 camera body will drop like a rock, and used Sigma and Tamron lenses won't hold much value either.

0 upvotes

Because the sooner you have it, the sooner you can put it to work. It will make me back that measly $200 in the first day i use it.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

2 upvotes

Nice sample gallery but where are the real real estate pictures? Taken from a small rooms corner? There you can see how much it is better than the old 14-24 Nikkor which was the best lens untill now...

1 upvote

I'm impressed but just don't think the pictures look as good as something in the 16-21mm range I find them a little uncomfortable to view

1 upvote

There are a couple pictures here that, just as @obsolescence mentioned in an earlier comment, were in need to the TS-E 17 to get the perfect composition and straight lines of the architecture to keep the photo "comfortable". I do think that 11mm has a whole new creative realm that needs exploring, which I hope to do as soon as I can use it again.

4 upvotes

Are you writing in English, Samuel, or unedited iPadese?

I can't parse the result, and have little idea actually what you're trying to say. Which might be interesting, thanks.

Also, 'a couple pictures'. This kind of I'm-a-fool vernacular is simply irritating in journalism, or frankly, anywhere else. Clarity, my friend.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

My apologies. After re-reading what I said, you're absolutely right.

One thing that has been mentioned about this image set is the effects this extreme field of view can have, especially when the camera isn't level. I interpreted the "uncomfortable to view" as being caused by things leaning backwards or forwards in the images, like buildings or pillars. #23 on page 2 is an example of what I had in mind. The building could have been perfectly straight with the TS-E 17. However, after re-reading jukeboxjohnnie's comment, there are some qualities to this perspective that don't apply to tilt or shift that aren't as big of an effect in, as they mentioned, a 16-21 mm range FOV. 08 on page #1 is another image that has been mentioned as too wide and awkward. True, it isn't a flattering image, but I was practically leaning on one of the workshop desks with the front element of the lens being just about in between the two cars. Squeezing in like that is the "new realm" I mentioned.

3 upvotes

A nice and also informative reply, Samuel, thank you

I've been off the internet moving (actually an enlightening pause...) and wanted to look at the images you mention before replying.

Actually, I think both of those images could be interesting in the right context, although both are 'pushing it' as far as normative viewer response. At the least, the Porsche one gives opportunities for crop, another important point for say a journalist or other in need of a quick take as I think you were.

Indeed, I have been looking and want to look more at the dimensions of what happens with wide angle geometric and perspective distortion. Even with good spatial perception and all the academic backgrounds, the whole picture has not yet clicked into place, and I think this would be useful.

One further point I could mention on your interesting 'new realm' would be the work of a fine journalistic photographer who used to post at least here on DPReview.

(cont'd)

0 upvotes

...this limit is really dumb, #2 here of 3)

He'd moved to Alaska and started a paper there (think he moved back out). His choice for wide angle was a mild fisheye Canon, on a 10D if I remember.

This actually gave wonderful shots for many of his subjects, indoors or out. I remember an extended family dinner, a basketball team, and group of fishermen showing off their very large salmon. Also a boat along a shore, other things. The look looked right, perhaps because it was something like what our eyes actually see and correct for; don't know, but it worked. It probably helped not to have to spend time on postprocessing also, if you think about it, and caught a lot of interesting details.

I was interested enough to try some work with a Sigma and one of their fisheyes on loan from a friend as we walked around interesting places in Basel one afternoon.

(also cont'd)

0 upvotes

(#3 of 3 to complete)

Afterwards I also made corrected versions of the images, which of course will cut out a lot of content. I liked the fisheye versions even though somewhat more severe than the news photographer's above, for many things. The ones I corrected, such as an Escher-like courtyard of stairways in the near medieval Basel city hall (Rathus) came out very nicely also. So maybe sometimes-pp is another thing you could add to thinking in your 'new realm'.

Hoping to hear more of it, and again thanks, Samuel,
Clive

not in Basel any more, if I might often enough wish it....

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

The "tool of choice" for architecture remains solidly the Canon 17mm T-SE lens, although this new 11-24mm wide zoom does offer another option.

5 upvotes

$3,400? Wow. I'll just get a Samyang when they release their own FF UWA prime.

5 upvotes

Yep, this price is the new high for any wide angle lens.

0 upvotes

not really.

there's a few UWA's that cost similar or more.

and btw, Samyang did - it's the 14mm 2.8.

0 upvotes

I'm aware of the 14mm Samyang. What they don't have is a rectilinear 11mm or 12mm prime, but I do see that coming as they already make them for mirrorless formats (a 10mm and 12mm)

1 upvote

$3400 for a *sharp-in-the-corners* 11mm FF lens is a bargain.

Samyang won't do one, it is out of their price league. It cannot be made cheap because there are too many technical burdens to be overcome (aspherical, super ED, coating etc.). Nikon's 13mm Holy Grail was *much* more expensive, Sigma's 12mm isn't useful in the corners. Maybe, Sigma could do a 11mm Art now, but it won't come cheap.

Samyang's 10mm are cropped which is easy to do. In the affordable range anyway, it may be better to use a fisheye lens and convert to rectilinear in software (as pano software does). However, it still does lead to blurry corners when going to extreme UWA.

2 upvotes

@wayne - right. a lens that no one has done before .. all of a sudden samyang is going to create it for peanuts. dont' hold your breath. you do realize this is the widest rectilinear lens ever created right?

0 upvotes

Article

[UPDATED] Can we get much wider? Canon EF 11-24mm F4 L USM samples gallery posted

Buying Options

Comments